Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Criminal Petitions Nos. 133 and 183 of 1986, decided on 3rd June, 1986.
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 15‑2‑1986 of the Lahore High Court Lahore in Criminal Appeal No. 496 of 1985).
(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.161‑‑Leave to appeal granted to examine question whether sentence awarded to accused commensurated with gravity of offence committed by him.
(b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.161‑‑Leave to appeal granted to accused to enable him to show cause against order of conviction.
Q.M. Salim, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in both the Petitions).
S.M. Zubair, Asstt.A.‑G. for the State (in both the Petitions).
Date of hearing: 3rd August, 1986.
This order will dispose of Criminal Petition No. 133 of 1986 and Criminal Petition No. 183 of 1986, as both are directed against one and the same judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore.
Muhammad Nawaz, a Patwari, was tried under section 161, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 for having accepted a sum of Rs.2,000 as illegal gratification in connection with his functions as a revenue Patwari, by the Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption, Sargodha and Faisalabad Division at Sargodha and was convicted under section 161, P.P.C. and sentenced to 11 months' R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000 or in default to undergo further R.I. for 10 months. On appeal, a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court accepted the appeal partly. The sentence of imprisonment was set aside and the fine reduced to Rs.15,000 or in default thereof he was to undergo 10 months R.I. He was, however, required to deposit the fine within two months failing which he was liable to be arrested and detained in jail for serving out the sentence of imprisonment in default of the payment of fine.
Muhammad Nawaz feeling dissatisfied has filed Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal (Criminal Petition No. 133 of 1986). The State too has filed a Petition to question the judgment of the High Court (Criminal Petition No. 183 of 1986) which is barred by time but an application for condonation of delay has been filed. For the reasons given therein the delay is condoned, subject to all just exception and the petition heard on merits.
We have heard learned counsel for the convicted Patwari as well as the State and feel that the question whether the sentence commensurate with the gravity of the offence committed by the Patwari has been imposed in this case and are inclined to grant leave to appeal in the petition filed by the State. Leave is also granted in the petition filed B by the convicted Patwari to enable him to show cause against the order of the conviction.
The result is that leave is granted in both these matters which may be put up for hearing at a very early date.
M.Y.H. Leave granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer